This common order dismissed three civil revision petitions challenging the trial Court's refusal to reopen a suit on possession or commission expert/Collector functions regarding a document duly shown to be irrelevant to the suit's issues.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
C.R.P.Nos.4917, 4940 and 4968 OF 2009
C O M M O N O R D E R;
These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed in interlocutory applications in I.A Nos.1720, 1721 and 1722 of 2008 respectively in O.S.No.2252 of 2006 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff are the daughter and father. The respondent filed O.S.No.2252 of 2006 seeking recovery of possession from the petitioner/defendant herein. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the possession of the petitioner/defendant is a permissive one and he revoked the permission and consequently the petitioner/defendant is liable to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
3. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. Issues came to be settled and the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. It appears, the parties also addressed arguments and the case stood posted for judgment. When the case reserved for judgment, the petitioner filed three applications being I.A.No. 1720 of 2008 for reopening, 1721 of 2008 for sending Ex.B.1 to hand writing Expert and 1722 of 2008 for sending Ex.B.1 to the District Collector for impounding the same.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the applications. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the applications on the ground that Ex.B.1 is no way relevant for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, by order dated 15.9.2009. The order passed on the three interlocutory applications are assailed in these revisions. More precisely, C.R.P.No.4940 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1721 of 2008, C.R.P.No.4968 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1722 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.4917 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in I.A No.1720 of 2008.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the material brought on record.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that Ex.B.1 is the agreement of sale executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of third parties and since the respondent/plaintiff denied the execution of Ex.B.1, the same is required to be sent to Expert for his opinion.
7. Apparently, the petitioner/defendant is not claiming any right and title over the property by virtue of Ex.B.1 agreement of sale. The parties to the proceedings are in no way concerned with Ex.B.1, agreement of sale.
It is totally different transaction and admittedly, this petitioner/defendant is not a party to Ex.B.1 agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court after going through the contents of Ex.B.1 observed that it is no way concerned with the dispute between the parties to the suit. The observation made by the trial Court cannot be found fault in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I do no see any valid grounds to interfere with the orders impugned in these three revision petitions.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No
costs.
__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J
13th November, 2009
PNV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned trial Court was correct in rejecting the applications to reopen the case, send documents for handwriting expert opinion, and impound documents as irrelevant to the dispute.
Petitioner (later identified as Respondent/Defendant
Respondent (later identified as Petitioner/Plaintiff
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
